Menu

Stripy guide 2014

Chronological list of posts related to the stripy controversy on this blog. Posts tagged *** are “must read” although of course you should read everything. For what happens outside of rapha-z-lab, see list of links here.

Includes a video highlighting a problem with the 2004 paper – one that requires no technical knowledge to understand, only common sense.

25/11/2012

Responding to the response ?That post is a bit more technical but go the comments section where we meet a very keen anonymous stripy supporter, Pep, who turns out to be an Editor at Nature Materials.

02/12/2012

Seeing is believing? Not always…Philip Moriarty catches the stripy fever and offers his first guest blog… and a first structured criticism of the response to stripy revisited.

06/12/2012

Scientific claims should be supported by experimental evidence [1, 2, 3]In a series of three posts, I stress one aspect which I (still) find particularly amazing; the publication in respected journals of claims which are not supported by any evidence. Here, no need for debates about interpretation of data because there is no data.

10/12/2012

Gaping holes in the gapCho et al reported the “Ultrasensitive detection of toxic cations through changes in the tunnelling current across films of striped nanoparticles” in the last issue of Nature Materials. I explain why I am not convinced.

Letter to Nature Materials, July 2009The letter to the Editor that accompanied our submission of “Stripy Nanoparticles Revisited” to Nature Materials in 2009; excerpt from final paragraph: “The possibility of refuting existing data and theories is an important condition of progress of scientific knowledge.” The manuscript was rejected.

Five cases of data re-useEvidence of data re-use is shown and communicated to the relevant institutions. EPFL considered, then, closed the case. Two corrections, one at PNAS, one at Nature Materials, ensued. The most seriously affected article, JSPM 4, 24–35, 2009, however stands uncorrected (because the Editor does not think he can do anything about it). Do not pay $113 + tax for that article, seriously.

Browsing the archivePhilip Moriarty thanks Francesco Stellacci for releasing the raw data but is not impressed. Comparison of unprocessed data and published figures is illuminating. Philip also shows how the stripes can be easily generated and turned on/off by the feedback loop gain.

Open science to settle stripy controversy?Guest post by Julian Stirling, announcing that his/our paper is now on arXiv. He also explains our choice of complete openness and tell his experience of trawling through the stripy data.